KILLERS BEHIND BARS - STEPHEN GRIFFITHS, THE CROSSBOW CANNIBAL

In days of old, people had to actually hunt down and capture their food before they were able to cook it and eat it. Today, though, there isn't such a need for this type of long-winded and arduous chore; is there? HUH? What do you mean 'There is to some'? Alright then. I best watch this 60 minute documentary made in 2013, for the reason's why. Bon Appetit.

In this episode of 'Killers Behind Bars', the best criminal
psychologist known to mankind, Professor David Wilson, yet again tries to do
what he does best -- figure out if a convicted killer has killed before.

This time though, the killer in question is none other than
the crossbow cannibal himself, Stephen Shaun Griffiths. Furthermore, for David
to be able carry out this very analytical task, he lavishes this program with
stock photography and archival footage, before traveling to Bradford
and interviewing a number of people who knew about this schizoid psychopath's
crimes. People such as Former Detectives: John Lee, Graham Weldon, and Peter
Hall. Physiologists: Peter Woods and David Holmes. Geographic Profiler: Sam. Plus
a victim's mother: Nicky Blamires; Stephens' ex-girlfriend: Kathy Hancock; and a
known acquaintance too: Bridgette Farrell.

What now follows is a basic run down of how this show plays
out:

Who is Stephen Griffiths?
Stephen was the eldest of three children, who at a very early age had a
morbid fascination of serial killers and their crimes. In fact, he was so
obsessed with this murderous practice, that after he got into some trouble when
he was only 17 years old, he studied how to become one himself.

What were his crime?
Including a three year period of incarceration at the tender age of 17
-- where Stephen attacked a supermarket manager at his store -- between 2009
and 2012, he also killed three known sex-workers from the city of Bradford.

Who did he kill?

On the 22nd of June, 2009, he
killed Susan Rushworth, a 43 year old mother of three; who went missing whilst
returning home from a night out.

On the 26th of April, 2010, he
killed Shelley Armitage, 31; who disappeared in Bradford
after she had dinner with a close friend.

On the 21st of May, 2010, he killed
Suzanne Blamires, 36; who mysteriously vanished whilst on an excursion in Bradford
city center.

What was Stephen's Modus Operandi? (1) All of his victims were known female
sex-workers that worked nearby. (2) He killed his victims with a crossbow
before meticulously dismembering their dead bodies in his flat. (3) He disposed
of their dead remains by putting them into garbage bags and dumping them into
the river. (4) He was careful not to leave any DNA at any of the crime scenes.

How was he caught?
While he was in the process of killing his third victim -- Suzanne Blamires
-- the CCTV operating in his apartment block captured him killing her in the
hallway. Thankfully, the security tape in question got into the hand of the local
constabulary, resulting in this sadistic killer to be sentenced to life in
prison.

Once David has presented his findings to his students, who
does Sophie -- a member of his class -- surmise Stephen has also killed? Now there are two people on Sophie's list that
needs further scrutiny. The first person is a 19 year old sex worker called Dawn
Shields; who disappeared from the streets of Sheffield
in May, 1994, only to turn up dead in a field located at the Peak District. And
secondly, there is the 21 year old sex-worker called Rebecca Hall; who
disappeared from the streets of Bradford in April, 2001,
only to turn up dead in a car-park near Stephen's flat.

Can David prove Sophie right? In the case of Dawn -- no --
I'm afraid not. There's too much contradictory evidence to prove otherwise.
However, in the case of Amy -- yes -- yes there is. Not only did Stephen show the location of where Amy's dead body was discovered to his ex-girlfriend after she had a
miscarriage, but in addition to this, it can be proven that he knew her too.

THE REVIEW:

Off the bat,
please allow me to apologize for my previous review on 'Killers
Behind Bars'. I'm sorry to say that I concentrated more on the structure of
the show than the show in itself. Moreover, I was so caught up in wanting to
know more about the killer in question, I almost forgot to mention what I
thought about the murdering b*stard in the process.

This time though -- no -- I won't have any problem trying to
analyse Stephen Griffiths; because I feel that I may know him already. No. Not
personally speaking of course. Figuratively speaking. As he's the type of
obsessive compulsive nut-job I come across every day whilst blogging, due to
his seemingly single-minded and obtuse ways.

Try to imagine if you will. Your every day normal looking
'Joe' off of the street, who likes a particular subject matter so much, that
over a period of time he emeses himself into it to such a degree, he doesn't
know where he ends and his 'hobby' begins. Yeah. I see it in a few comic book fans
or movie buffs here and there, each of them trying their best to be someone
else whilst not knowing who they themselves truly are. Furthermore, in some
cases this 'character trait' is so predominant, I can't help but feel that there
are a lot more Stephen Griffiths out there than I want to believe.

Granted, not all of them go around and commit murder in a
very cold and logical manner. Also, I'm sure many of them would think like I do too -- and turn up their noses at this sort of sordid act. But trust me, folks, there
out there. In one way or another, there are many of these lonely secluded
deranged people that have no idea what to do with their lives, apart from what
strives them 'striving on'.

However, it is at this point precisely -- a motive -- which
prompts me to pick up on of the only flaws I could find within this episode of
'Killers
Behind Bars' -- who was Stephen Griffiths, and how did he come to be?

OK, I have to admit, Professor David Wilson did state in
this show that he didn't know who he was either. And that he would have liked
to have gotten a bit more back-story on him first, so he could have added some
type of 'conceptual origin' to his findings. Do you know what, though, crime
fans? I have a gut instinct David would not have found anything of relevance
even if he tried. Stephen is the way he is because of he and he alone. There is
no 'trigger' or 'big event' which David could have pointed at and said 'Here,
this is why Stephen killed those women'.

And do you know why I say this, dear reader? Well, the
answer is a simple one if you think about it. Stephen is an obsessive compulsive
person, and as such, trains himself to think and do things in a particular way,
even though deep down inside he doesn't know why he does it to begin with.

I'm sure if Steven's obsession was in another area of
interest -- like gardening for instance -- he would have been one of those guys
named after their own hobby. But in real life he isn't a 'plant man', is he?
Thanks to David's efforts, it's now been proven that he's a murderer that has
killed four times and not three.

Well done, Dave. To me, that's the main aspect about this
show which I truly love -- capturing killers that have killed before. Please may
your reign continue, and hopefully I'll see you here next week. TTFN.

Sponsored by Where You Watch. The movie community reporting and updating you on movie announcements, news, downloads and streams. From blockbuster movies like Star Wars: The Last Jedi to indie darlings such as The Disaster Artist.